WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR SOMEONE BEING CLASSIFIED AS EMERGENT?

I am not the establisher of criteria nor would I ever think to create such a criterion. I will simply give my understanding of what has been portrayed as emergent and why I think it is wrong.

Emergent churches use pop culture and pop phsycology to appear relevent to the next generation while distorting or leaving out parts of the Word of God. They seek to appeal to the senses instead of the conscience.

This becomes dangerous because they have a whole generation that is coming to church believe themselves to be saved because of their church membership and “belief” in God. These people however have never been transformed by the renewing of their mind. They have never been called to abbandon their former selves and submit all to Christ. They simply come have fun and leave without ever hearing a clear gospel presentation.

Paul told Timothy many times to preach the Word. preach it in season and out of season. Meaning preach it whether or not it fills your pews. Whether or not it is popular, preach the word. Sadly most emergant churches care more about getting people in the door than about telling them what they need to hear. What matters in eternity.

If this answers your question then so be it. If not simply delete it.

I would like to point out that I don’t know you or whether or not the ministry you represent is emergent. I am simply answering your question.

Speaking only for myself.

Any Emergent person who buys into the Post-Modern idea that propositional truth claims are ‘arrogant’ or that all propostional truth claims have an equal standing and should have an equal voice in the emergent conversation is on shacky ground.

The reason for this is that the Word of God teaches very exclusive propostional truths, that if denied will cost a person his/her soul.

Brian McClaren (who does NOT speak for all Emergents) is a prime example. He denies the Penal Substitutionary Attonement. And his post-modern philosophy undermines the truth.

Not all Emergents think this way. Some just think emergent is a style of worship that meets the needs and tastes of the younger generation.

Ultimately, it is about fidelity to the Biblical Jesus Christ and fidelity to the Biblical gospel message that determine whether any person Emergent, Seeker Senstive, Fundamentalist or Evangelical is orhtodox or heretical.

When Emergent’s deny absolute truth claims, and dable in ‘alternative’ spirtual methods that contradict and undermine a proper Biblical understanding of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation by Grace Alone through Faith Alone. It is the Biblical duty of Christians to rebuke them and reject their teaching.

Nathan,
What is the “whole gospel” that you are speaking of? Sometimes you speak of “the gospel in its entirety.” I asked you before what that meant, and I don’t recall your answering me. I may have just missed your explanation in our previous discussion, so if you’ve already answered me just let me know and I’ll see if I can find it.

Building on Chris R.’s solid foundation. He says, “Not all Emergents think this way.” Absolutely true. Then he says: “Some just think emergent is a style of worship that meets the needs and tastes of the younger generation.” Absolutely true and fundamentally I would personally have no problem with this whatsoever. The Christian music I personally write has a contemporary sound ala Wallflowers/Goo Goo Dolls/Springsteen. That is not the issue with me at all.

Finally Chris R. says, “Ultimately, it is about fidelity to the Biblical Jesus Christ and fidelity to the Biblical gospel message.” That’s the bottom line. And what I am often writing about is what happens as God gives people over to their own nature and lets them follow fools like McLaren who deny the Lord Who bought him. Man simply cannot maintain Biblical fidelity unless the Lord chooses to sustain him and this is why I encourage people to come away now from this whole unclean Emergent rebellion against the Bible.

No minister truly sent by Jesus makes it his ministry to help people embrace their doubts and mystery – he proclaims the genuine Gospel of Jesys Christ. And what we are dealing with here is a spiritual deception and no human being – no matter how in love he is with his own reasoning – ever stays in the will of God apart from the Spirit keeping him there. History is littered with ravening wolves who denegrated the Word of God and were abandoned by Him to their own destruction.

As far as the issue of discernment ministries as Mike Corley said on his recent Program where I was guest, we did this to answer that very question. Whether one likes what we had to say would then be between an individual and God:
http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Mike_Corley_Program/archives.asp?bcd=2007-3-15

RE: “No minister truly sent by Jesus makes it his ministry to help people embrace their doubts and mystery – he proclaims the genuine Gospel of Jesys [sic.] Christ.”

I suppose this depends on what is meant by “embrace” – I think of the biblical prayer “Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief.”

That said, I think a little mystery embracing is a good thing and biblical thing. One of the faults of “modern-Christianity” is it’s over-dependence on reason. Obviously we have a reasonable faith. But the Godhead is infinitely mysterious too.

In this I think the new generation, as it were, can teach us old modernist dogs a few new tricks.

Neil S.

Ken,

I would agree with Chris R’s definition, as well, but the term ‘emergent’ has become much wider – encompassing ‘emerging’ churches – which hold a high view of scripture and teach from it. It also has seemed to become a catchphrase/label with which to discount anything which one disagrees. [In a number of ways, and I'm not saying this is you, followers of Calvin's teachings in the theoblogosphere have tended to lump those who disagree with their '5-points' (namely, Arminians) as 'emergent', as well.

In your case, specifically, though, you try to take on MUCH more authority in "discernment" than is yours to have. For instance, in your last paragraph, you stated:

As far as the issue of discernment ministries as Mike Corley said on his recent Program where I was guest, we did this to answer that very question. Whether one likes what we had to say would then be between an individual and God: (emphasis mine)

This is a prime example where you (possibly unintentionally) try to make your words into God's words. This IS an arrogant 'truth' claim. One may disagree with what you had to say on the subject without disagreeing with God. Therefore, disagreement would be between the listener and you, not the listener and God.

Chris R said:

Any Emergent person who buys into the Post-Modern idea that propositional truth claims are ‘arrogant’ or that all propostional truth claims have an equal standing and should have an equal voice in the emergent conversation is on shacky ground.

I would agree that holding propositional truth claims is not 'arrogant'. However, sometimes truth claims given as 'fact' are traditionally supported (or supported by Creeds), but not Biblically supported. Unwillingness to discuss such things in a rational manner and to decry those who disagree as 'emergent' is completely unhelpful, and un-Christ-like.

[Example: Some hold that after his death on the cross that Jesus descended into hell before he was raised again, per the Nicean Creed (I believe). I know an individual who held this to be propositional truth, and who derided any who disagreed - even though it is a tradition not 100% backed by scripture. So, is to hold to this belief arrogance? No. Is to hold that one MUST believe this to be saved, with no quarter given, arrogance? No - just bull-headed immaturity that is destructive to the Kingdom.]

Not all propositional truth claims are created equal, but it is useful to understand what is Biblical fact, what is tradition, what is opinion, and what is open to interpretation.

Neil,
There is a lot about God that is mystery, that is, that goes beyond human understanding. Sometimes by God’s grace we can experience some of the depths of who God is – his love, his joy, his forgiveness, for example – in a way that goes far beyond reason.

My concern with “mystery” as it is used by some would be two-fold: first of all some who talk about “mystery” seem to use it as a bait to make “questioning truth” something to be desired. “Mystery” in this sense carries with it the idea that, “I can’t absolutely know much of anything.” This kind of thinking has been taught in many seminaries for decades – and many preachers and teachers have absorbed it and grown away, not towards, the God who is above our understanding.

Secondly, some Christians who pursue a close walk with God are being led to believe that it is okay to use methods that are not biblical to connect with Him, to understand the “mysteries” of God. The “new ways” of connecting with God can easily lead to one’s meeting the “divine” who is not divine.

The sad thing is that God is perfectly capable of revealing some of his “mysteriousness” to us. In his Word, through the help of the Holy Spirit, there is no end to knowing Him more and more. I also think that God can work through dreams, visions, or a word from others, to give us a glimpse of his joy, love, forgiveness. But Satan wants people to try to manipulate God into causing such things.

Another way that Satan works is to make people so afraid of veering into pagan practices that they freeze at the least suggestion that God can be personally involved in their life apart from when they are reading Scripture. (That’s an overstatement, but expresses generally what I’m trying to say.)

I would agree with you that not all emergents/emerging are the same. That must be true of people wearing any label. Both “sides” in this discussion need to learn to look beyond labels.

*effects, not affects

Just to clarify, when I say “I’ve seen people say this” in my post above, I’m referring to people saying that McLaren denies penal substitution.

Ken,

In your statement:

“No minister truly sent by Jesus makes it his ministry to help people embrace their doubts and mystery – he proclaims the genuine Gospel of Jesys Christ. And what we are dealing with here is a spiritual deception and no human being – no matter how in love he is with his own reasoning – ever stays in the will of God apart from the Spirit keeping him there. History is littered with ravening wolves who denegrated the Word of God and were abandoned by Him to their own destruction.”

In effect you are saying (at least as I hear it.) that we must not think of God as a mystery nor ever have doubts. That is not true at all… God is the Mystery Revealed… yet we will always still view God as a mystery.

Also, there is a big difference between how you are presenting this “embrace their doubts and mystery” and what is meant… most often it is how we are saying press in to Christ in spite of your circumstances…

The biggest issue is that you seem to miss the finer points as we do speak a different language. Yes, there is a “postmodern” influence in our understanding… yet you have modernism which is as deadly of an influence in your own theology. Many of us myself included are a bit influenced by both, yet recognize that both are not true… yet, we speak the “language” so that we can be understood by those we are reaching.

Yet, as you attack with a broad brush, you attack people like myself and in that as I am fight also against heresy in our camp like Gnosticism, you cast stones and hit me also.

I have not problem in you pointing out issues that we are well aware we have issues… as we see the modern church does also… so we are looking for authentic and something real… so we start with a high Christology (which is gained from scripture) and seek honestly represent our faith.

I am glad you recognize this is not about “music styles” or “candles” as most of us who call ourselves “emerging” often can spot a “poser” a mile a way and often we speak of this between ourselves that it is deeper than being cool or a fad or style. Jesus is greater than all those things.

The other issue is that there are some ignorant statements being said on both sides…

There is a view, of the suffering Servant… this is the main thrust of the Gospel of Mark, in which the view Christus Victor is understood. This view predates and was taught by Irenaeus and the early church fathers before him… the substitutional atonement was actually built upon this view and came much later… most of emerging folks still hold to substitutional atonement, and some are exploring Christus Victor and see it as a model that is much better in representing God as loving as opposed to a God of wrath.

I personally see there is room both theologically and historically for both as is mentions Mark’s Gospel which is actually the Apostle Peter’s perspective is where Christus Victor is gained.

Again, the broad brush approach is a lousy way to come at us. In fact as I read CRN I do see at times good things, yet the overwhelming posts that have grievous errors… (Especially Dwyana Litz’s) makes it hard to take the other things serious.

Chris P. claims that”

Another point in which I disagree is the “conversation” the Scripture never encourages us to accept any and all pov’s as valid or even worthy of consideration. anything that viloates foundational truth is anathema.”

Gordon Clark, who was not an emerging folk at all, taught that the word Logos in Greek contained the idea of not only “word” or “words” but of a “conversation”. In a sense God started the divine conversation when He said, “Let there be…” That very Word out of God (figuratively) mouth was Jesus as it is taught in the Gospel of John…

Jesus is the Conversation incarnate.

When we talk of the emerging conversation we view it like when Jesus walked with His disciples on the road to Emmaus. As He walked He conversed and revealed the eternal truth of the mystery of Christ Crucified.

Again, on needs more background to gain where we are coming from… and often what is attacked, was taught by conservative Baptist theologians like Gordon Clark. (Though I think he errors too much in the rationalist camp.)

Also, as I have demonstrated on my own blog and at times others like on this one demonstrate that people can say things and then those words can be taken and pushed farther than their intent.

No one here or on my own blog actually thinks you are god… yet you kept making statements that kept implying it. I think you have been a good sport about all that. Yet, it seems you may be missing the main point that just because someone does not state something exactly as you believe, does not mean they are apostates.

Also, CRN often throws out an “innuendo” which makes people like Beth Moore sound like a false teacher. Then nothing is given to back up the innuendo as factual… leaving people the impression she is… this happens quite a bit. This amounts to hearsay and gossip… and bearing false witness.

Be careful you ambition does not cloud your ability to actually do good for the Kingdom of God… There is a fine line from actual discernment and judgmentalism. Interestingly many who speak out against CRN and you are not even from the emergent/emerging camp… that should tell you something.

Blessings,
iggy

Chris L,

The descended into Hell idea is expressed in the Apostles Creed – but now I’m being picky…

Neil S

Chris P.,

First off – how you can continue to deny a difference between “emerging” [which is a verbal gerund and describes the likes of Driscoll, Burke, Kimball and others] and “Emergent” [which is a proper noun and describes folks like McClaren, Pagitt, Church of the Apostles and others] is beyond me.

Secondly, Deuteronomy does indeed say the secret things of God belong to him, but the revealed stuff is to be obeyed (my paraphrase). But your application of this to the mysteries of God, particularly as they relate to worship, is a violation of the context of the text.

Deuteronomy 29 is clearly predicting God’s judgment upon Israel for disobedience. And when people ask why the judgment? They can turn to the clear teachings of Scripture to see this prophecy.

In context, the secret things of God, which belong to him, is his decretive will. His decreed will of things that must take place. When and how is a secret, a mystery, that belongs to God.

To apply this text to the context of a discussion on reason vs. mystery is to force it to say something it was never intended to say (hence our discussion on the need to understand context).

While I readily agree that some take the mystery thing too far – there’s no doubt that the American Evangelical church, a product of modernism, has historically errored in the other direction.

Neil S.

Amy,

RE: “My concern with ‘mystery’ as it is used by some would be two-fold: first of all some who talk about “mystery” seem to use it as a bait to make “questioning truth” something to be desired. “Mystery” in this sense carries with it the idea that, “I can’t absolutely know much of anything.”

I agree that some have taken the whole mystery thing too far. But the “abuses” of some do make the “uses” of others wrong.

I’d say for far too long the American Evangelical church, heavily influenced by modernism and the age of scientific reason, has acted like we’ve gotten God all figured out – all systematized and creedalized.

I understand the need for caution, but the other extreme is equally wrong… and that is to condemn anything that even hints of mystery.

Neil S.

Chris P.

RE: “Another point in which I disagree is the “conversation” the [sic.] Scripture never encourages us to accept any and all pov’s as valid or even worthy of consideration.”

I agree. And this is a very good example of the distinction within the Emergent camp – which is why the term is nearly meaningless. Some would make the same denial as you, some that regularly get trashed on Slice 2.0. Others are guilty of saying all pov’s are equally valid.

True discernment not only distinguished between pov’s but also between who holds what pov.

Neil S.

Ken,

Your previous post was so good too – and now you’ve reverted to sarcasm and hostility.

Surely you’re not suggesting that the corpus of christians throughout the ages who have not held to the five points of Dort are condemned for this?

Kinda raises the question of how correct does your Theology Proper have to be before you are saved?

Neil S.

Actually Ken I have only seen you preach half the gospel… you seem to only preach Jesus crucified… and deny the power of the resurrection…

The Gospel is the proclamation that Jesus lives, not just that He died on a Cross. Yet, time and again I read your statements that it is only about atonement of sins, yet you go on and deny that atonement happened by teaching WE must life OUR life holy… and miss that it is NOT OUR LIFE but Jesus’ that we are now LIVING. It is by His Life we are saved…

Many Calvinists miss this.

“For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!”

The Gospel I have heard you preach is only the first part. and even that you seem to walk all over… as you deem divisiveness as righteous over reconciliation.

Blessings,
iggy

iggy,

I’m afraid barring the Lord giving you eyes to see you’re not going to “see” what I am saying. You say, “you seem to only preach Jesus crucified… and deny the power of the resurrection… It is by His Life we are saved… Many Calvinists miss this.” I’m not a Calvinist nor am I a “5 pointer.”

I don’t know iggy, perhaps it’s your ignorance of Biblical theology which causes you to continually misrepresent what I teach but if Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead then no one would be justified (necessary to even BE saved) in God’s sight. You might want to read 1 Corinthians 15, a dead savior can’t save anybody. You ought to know that, but then again maybe this is the reason I can be a cult leader, huh.

Chris, would you also have gotten upset with Jesus for speaking in metaphors?

Chris P.

I think your post addressing Chris was actually in response to my comments to you re” Deuteronomy 29.

And I agree that the Scripture are doctrinal stories and that some are blatantly doctrinal – no one has ever said otherwise… certainly not me.

Point is, it is against the simplest meaning of Scripture to use Deuteronomy 29 to argue against the aspect that when we worship there is an element of mystery involved.

You are, as is the tendency, setting up a false antithesis between knowledge and mystery. It’s not an either or, it’s a both and.

As for “As for Deut 29:29, in the context of chapter 29 or within the overall context of Scripture it says what it says.” All I can say is – “Yeah, so what’s your point?”

Neil S.

Ken,
My point mainly is… I preach the risen Christ and you call me a heretic without apology. In your broad brush you do not dare who you damage as long as you make a name for yourself… that is called selfish ambition.

As far as the “Cult Leader”… you are one… I have given plenty of proof and you have yet to give a rebuttal other than sarcasm.

Part of the main itinerary of a cult leader is mind control and misinformation… and you are a master at that. You speak love but preach hate… Fred Phelps would be proud.

Blessings,
iggy

Ken,

it just my style, but whenever I’m posting a rebuttal I try and start with what I have in agreement with the person, then move the the issues I wish to contrast.

I know it’s very presumptuous to offer a posting suggestion – but you find it easier, and you may not be so angry, if you start from an area of agreement then move to issues of disagreement.

That an dropping the habitual ad hominem arguments as well… I’d say that to all side btw…

For example, instead of responding to iggy’s post with a cutting comment about his biblical knowledge, you could have acknowledged that you both share a belief in the resurrection, then proceeded to point out how this does indeed fit into your preaching.

Neil S.

Joe,

that is the danger that “rationalist” thinking been doing to our grasp of the scripture…

Yes we can understand the bible in some sense by reading it… People like Ken and others teach that the Bible give eternal life… but Jesus states in John 5: 39 -40 39.

“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

So who do I believe… Ken or Jesus?

It is that somewhere we think that a we by our selves can understand scripture without the Holy Spirit… Ken has taught a bit about this… yet negates it as well as Chris P. when they insist that “mystery’ is an evil word! Tell me… can you explain how the Holy Spirit enters a man? Or let’s just take a peek at certain chapters of the book of Job… God explains that there is a ton of “mystery” out there that man has no clue about… yet rationalism has crept into our doctrine and supplanted the Holy Spirit in many cases… and is taught by Ken and many at the CRN crew. I think mostly our of ignorance of sound doctrine and a historical knowledge…

Here is a mystery…

Romans 8:16 “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.”

that is about as subjective as one can get… and if McManus or McLaren, or Bell or whoever stated that in a different way without changing the meaning many would be jumping all over them for not “believing in objective truth”.

That is a mystery… how does the Holy Spirit testify with our spirit? we can attempt to explain it… but I am content at taking it a face value.

In all this I am not denying rationalist thought in entirety, rather that one keeps it in a biblical perspective.

Blessings,
iggy

BTW,

Ken is sore at me as i outed him as a cult leader on my blog… he hit 9 out of 10 on the 10 warning signs of a cult and cult leader.
So with that you might give him a bit of grace… 9 out of 10 though… makes you wonder!

Blessings,
iggy

Ken,

We can all take comfort it that…

i guess you could go and write another “missive” and let us know about how angry your not… LOL!

Without your insults can you answer to anything brought up here? Can you admit that maybe not ALL merging folk are heretics in your next missive? It would actually add TO your credibility!

I still hold out hope in Christ for you.

Blessings,
iggy

Joe,
Joe, I think if you had read my post carefully you would have realized that there were things in it that those people in the church you grew up in would not have approved of. Not if you’re representing them correctly. I was not presenting a “provable” God. I firmly believe that much of what I know and accept in Christianity is “by faith” – for example, creation, inerrancy, the depth of God’s love. I’m sorry if I miscommunicated somehow.

I wonder if you only noticed the part of my post that was “negative.” Let me recopy the part you may have missed:

“There is a lot about God that is mystery, that is, that goes beyond human understanding. Sometimes by God’s grace we can experience some of the depths of who God is – his love, his joy, his forgiveness, for example – in a way that goes far beyond reason. . . . .

(Two paragraphs stating my concerns about “mystery” ending with “The “new ways” of connecting with God can easily lead to one’s meeting the “divine” who is not divine.”)

“The sad thing is that God is perfectly capable of revealing some of his “mysteriousness” to us. (Explanation: He can reveal his “mysteriousness” – some of his nature – to us without us attempting to have it revealed to us by unbiblical means. He doesn’t need us to use”Tibetan singing bowls” or any such device to reveal himself to us. By “the sad thing is” I simply meant that it’s sad that we try to attempt to manipulate something that God is perfectly willing to do in His own way.) In his Word, through the help of the Holy Spirit, there is no end to knowing Him more and more. I also think that God can work through dreams, visions, or a word from others, to give us a glimpse of his joy, love, forgiveness. But Satan wants people to try to manipulate God into causing such things.”

Another way that Satan works is to make people so afraid of veering into pagan practices that they freeze at the least suggestion that God can be personally involved in their life apart from when they are reading Scripture. (That’s an overstatement, but expresses generally what I’m trying to say.)”
(End of previous comment.)

In summary, there are many things about God that are way beyond my understanding or my ability to comprehend in a rational way. He doesn’t want me to try to perceive them through unbiblical means (for example, by repetitive chanting). Also, if I start defining absolutes as “mysteries” that can not be defined and make an idol out of “all the things I do not know” then I am on the wrong track . . .

If you go back and reread my post you may want to consider that the “negative” part that you apparently noticed may contain some worthwhile things to consider – even if your former church would have approved of them. Be careful not to throw ideas out just because some group that you find distasteful adheres to them.

Neil,
I agree with this to some extent: “for far too long the American Evangelical church, heavily influenced by modernism and the age of scientific reason, has acted like we’ve gotten God all figured out – all systematized and creedalized.”

What I react to is the tendency by some to want to question or downplay many things that are clear in scripture all in the name of “mystery,” and the tendency to come up with questionable means of becoming intimate with the “mysterious God.”

Amy,

I understand your concern and it is warranted. I’ve just read so many wanting to trash the likes of Foster and anyone else who uses the word “mystery.”

it’s all a matter of resisting the temptation to lump.

Neil

Yes Ken, I am serious. I realize posts have been less than nice to you – but still, your posts are generally wrought with sarcasm, hostility, and anger.

If you cannot see that when you type things such as

“…perhaps it’s your ignorance of Biblical theology which causes you to…”

Although I will admit – you’ve been more civil on this thread then most.

Thanks for that.

Neil

Ken,
I don’t know you, and I don’t know all your motives, but I will assume that you do what you do out of a sincere conviction and love.
I am a frequent visitor of CRN, and I’ve read much of your problems with ‘emergent’, the ‘emerging church’, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, Brian Mclaren, Erwin McManus, and others.

I do agree with some of what you say on CRN, namely about T.D. Jakes, Sylvia Brown, and maybe a few others (though I disagree with you centering on T.D. Jakes ideas of the trinity and not pointing out the equally important fact of his lavish lifestyle and false teachings about a ‘rich’ Jesus)

One of my main concerns is what you’ve said about Donald Miller. First of all, you label him ‘emergent’, which is pretty untruthful, unloving, and wrong. And your arguments against him…I dunno, but this link here contains a quote from him: http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/02/is_donald_mille.html

Then after quoting him, you proceed to tear him apart, label him emergent, and denounce his ‘teachings’ as heretical. You take one quote, and then you pretty much tell him what he meant. That’s not how it works. As Paul washer has said, you have to read the whole book to see what he meant. and I recommend reading Searching For God Knows What by Donald Miller if you haven’t yet. It may clear things up. If not, well, I’m sorry that you have that misunderstanding of him. And, by the way, his church, Imago Dei, is ‘reformed,’ as you also seem to be and as Paul Washer is (I’m pretty sure.) I hope your perception and (hopefully) misunderstandings about Miller will clear up.

When I first read all your info on Rob Bell, I thought some things you said were somewhat valid. (By the way, thanks for having a link to his sermon on revelation, I loved it)
However, when I got his book, Velvet Elvis, and got to read it myself, I was shocked at how some of the things he said were distorted . For example he said “you can’t simply do what the Bible says.” But in the book, Bell goes on to explain why- because before we can do it, we have to decide what it means!!! Before we can love our neighbor, we have to understand and decide what love is, what it looks like, who our neighbor is, etc. Before we can believe in Jesus we have to understand who Jesus is, what believing means, whether it is simply agreeing to a list of ideas or not. (Donald Miller talks quite a bit about the whole agreeing to a list of ideas/facts in his book SFGKW)

I recommend being very wise in which battles you choose, as well as reading what John has to say in 1 John about what God wants from us: 1) to believe in Jesus, and 2) to love one another. It seems to me that those two things, along with loving the Lord our God, are really the core and essentials of our faith.

love in Christ,
Tim

Tim, BUT KEN PLEASE READ ALSO!

Here’s an amen from my corner…

I have one exception…

“emergent/emerging” seems to be equated with heretical.

I think you have brought out all of our concerns.

I see emergent as valid and though I fully acknowledge it’s problems we are not about being conformed to culture, but reaching culture for Christ Jesus.

Many miss we have what is called a High Christology. This means we definitively affirm Who Jesus is.

The concerns and what is often the issue that Postmodernism as a philosophy is equated with emerging… it is not.

One can look at it this way.

When Darwin wrote his theory, it changed how Christians viewed the bible. The bible did not change… the core beliefs of Christianity did not change… what did was that the bible up until that time was not thought of as a science book… nor used as a way of proving science.

After the modernist attack on the bible by Darwin and the philosophers of modernism, Christians began to use modern methods to prove to the modernist the bible holds up… and for the greatest point they did a great job.

The issue is in a subtle way, modernism has infused it’s view into Christianity.

We are going through the same issue today… but the real problem is it is the modernist view within Christianity that is attack the Christian view that is using postmodernism to reach people for Christ.

As an emerging person, we sound as if we are attack “traditional” Christianity or the core, yet most often most hold to the true core of Christianity…

many are Calvinist in fact I find I am a bit rare as i am not… nor are many of the Armeius persuasion which again i am not.

I am a Biblist… I believe the bible and live by its teachings. i may not approach it by the scientific method, yet do use that method at times, if it deems that I need t when talking to someone about Jesus…

I consider all these as “tools” for us to use to reach a fallen generation.

Much of the arguments around the topics of hell and inerrancy are not even new arguments… in fact they date back centuries. part of the reason is that it is not as clear in the bible as it would appear if one takes an honest look at it and reads the early church fathers and the Hebraic view points.

I realized most of the emerging tend not to come from a postmodern view at all… Rather a Hebraic viewpoint. It is interesting how close they are, yet how different they are.

I hope that Ken will seek out church history before the Reformation… there is a lot of it and not all of it was evil or bad… nor was all that came out of the reformation good… we sometimes only think the Catholics killed the Reformers… yet the Reformers even killed each other over their view… just take a look at Calvin who killed his best friend over a minor disagreement on the 5 points…

the greatest thing was that we had a return to the common man having the scriptures to read… in a Hebrew house often they had scrolls to read. The scripture was like tapestry to their house. It was literally written on the walls and doors.

When the reformation restored the bible to everyone that again changed much in how Christians viewed God and each other… again both good and bad.

I have gone on much to long here… but i hope that Ken will read your comment and realize that many have also read the sames books and do not see them a heretical… in fact they see that the critics are twisting these authors views to fit their preconceived ideas of who they are… and that is not discernment at all… dishonest maybe, but not discernment.

Blessings,
iggy

Iggy,
You say, “I find it interesting that those who attack Donald Miller do not get him” or twists what he says.

You’re assuming that everyone who attacks Donald Miller “does not get him” or twists what he says.

I purposely read the book without reading criticisms about the book beforehand (though it’s possible I may have read one or two a couple of years ago.) Could it have been the “mysterious God making Himself known through the Holy Spirit” that caused me to say “no” to a number of things in the book? Could it have been my knowledge of scripture?

You may assume that anyone who would criticize such a book is “legalistic.” May I suggest that many people who loose what they might call “a strong legalistic bondage in the past” walk in “freedom” that is not the kind of freedom that Scripture refers to. I’m not saying that I know or even think that you’re doing that – I don’t know you, haven’t read much of your comments here. Take it as a general observation.

Once in a church I used to be in a clown into the sanctuary and entertained everyone. He looked like a geek and called up the pastor’s daughter and flirted with her. He talked about how he couldn’t wait to get her in the back room after the service. He scratched his crack throughout his performance. He talked about “freedom in Christ” and how so many have lost that freedom, and can’t crack a smile. The pastor got up afterwards and prayed and thanked God that we have freedom in Christ .

I’ll continue this later – have to drive my daugher somewhere.

Iggy,
I read “To Own a Dragon” first. I grew up with a father, but well he was never “father of the year material.” I am currently in “Searching for God Knows What” and really like it. I’m hoping to read BLJ soon.

Amy,

“You’re assuming that everyone who attacks Donald Miller “does not get him” or twists what he says.”

I am not saying EVERYONE who attacks DM does not get him or twists what he says… i am saying from all those who i have read that are critical of him have attacked him and/or twisted what he says.

Now, that does not mean that if one disagrees with him they have done those things.

Also, I agree that some do not understand the freedom we have, yet that is where true discernment is to be used.

We are free to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ and we are no longer in bondage to sin… in fact, we are called to used wisdom and depend entirely on Christ Jesus as to how we are to live. So as scripture states we are free to do anything, yet not everything is beneficial… I might at risk of “adding to scripture” say not everything is healthy or appropriate also. We are to live in a way that compliments and brings glory to Christ Jesus…

We must not though be afraid or be guilty of teaching things contrary to our freedom… as that replaces the Holy Spirit in a persons life… we often need to work out our salvation and often we don’t… we just accept what is spoon fed us.

I hope that clarifies what i mean as i say these things.

blessings,
iggy

Iggy,
To briefly end my story, I could have concluded, with the comedian, that my reaction was “legalistic” Certainly if I went by other’s reactions, including the pastors, I should have concluded that something was wrong with me. Or I could simply choose to believe that the scriptures that came to my mind and the uncomfortableness and shock that I felt came from the Holy Spirit.

Iggy,
“and it might have been, if delivered extremely well… very funny…”

It wasn’t delivered well. I don’t now how he hoped to make it as a clown, except I guess that he was somehow being advertised from one church to the next . . .

But, honestly, your statement bothers me. Does “very funny” equal “okay in God’s sight?”

Iggy, I think the list is quite telling. We should post it here.

amy,

I said “in fact i too would have trouble with a clown joking about getting the pastors daughter in the back room”

yet as i was not there to witness it first hand and do not know you well enough to just take a story at face value…(trust issues due to abuse from my legalistic days)…My first thought was maybe it was how you perceived it, then that i too might also have perceived ti that way… and it might not have been that way if it was done very well…

As far as legalism…

I define it as this:

Anything that is added to the Gospel of “saved by grace through faith”… it is that the idea that we can add to our sanctification by our own works. Or that we can please God by our works…

God is only pleased by the finished works of Christ and that we depend totally on Jesus by faith. The “Just shall live by faith” … or as Habakkuk is rightfully translated… “the just shall live by His faith.” Notice it is not even our faith for even faith is a gift.

Blessings,
iggy

Has anyone seen God’s over/under predictions for the super bowl?